#book-recommendations
1 messages · Page 205 of 1
He like proves some weird inequality and said the exponents can only be integers or something like that
Weird, I have to continue grading but lemme see
Pg 128 starting from "For a more detailed discussion of isolated singularities, we consider [three cases]..."
Holy fuck this whole page is like
The way I wrote in undergrad lol
Block paragraphs
Most of the book is like this
I love it
I wrote my proofs like that
In grad complex, prof. liked it
I tried it in Algebra and prof did not like it
i am still asking
for a hardcore textbook
that is advanced and is very spicy
something that will make me improve
it can be in any topic really but i really like group theory
and/or algebra in general
merciless textbook
Idk, u could read Lang's algebra book
The higher infinite 
Ralf schindler set theory
anyone know a good pdf on applying fourier analysis to sound?
Those two are very hard, have fun
@marble rock Stein Harmonic Analysis: Real Variable methods
i read (pugh uptill single var , dummit uptill field theory , hoffman kunze and some topology from munkres but im super bad )
do differential geometry
Spivak Comprehensive Intro to Diff. Geometry
👀
I thought You wanted something spicy
how is spivak spicy
that is spicy
(genuinely asking what makes spivak spicy, i don't know)
differential geometry will improve u 😄
every1 comments that i do textbooks
very fast
and i do not take my time
and i understand that its because
i wanna jump into the cooler stuff
not be boggled odwn with basic shit
@gray gazelle you see the word spivak is very close to the word spicy
but meh

You can read Dirichlet's papers on arithmetic progression
spicy spivak
Go back and read the master's, it's not too difficult
hard ones
Super good
There's also the Stein and Shakarchi analysis sequence
volumes 1-4
hahahaa
That's a beautiful cover man
These fuckers will be haunting you in your dreams
if i were to choose
i wooudl choose
more algebra
or maybe learn some NT
i never leant NT
more algebra
I find that analytic number theory is more fun though
Hrmm
You asked for the hardest books we know 
nvm
Hardest book I know is probably Schulten's 3 manifold Topology, but that one is just
Too crazy
yea i want to improve
why do you want
not just be spanked
do grandpa rudin 😎
i want to improve with solving problems and doiung math
@long bear
and i just like being fucked
in general
Aside from analysis, books on combinatorical optimisation should be quite difficult
that sound spicy
i am skimming
comprhenesive introduction
this shit looks fun
how much diff geo
is this
mo2men okay spicy group theory book
Rotman?
@marble rock the first volume is just the beginnings
The second one is where it gets pretty hardcore
I was gonna joke Fulton and Harris lmao
The last 3 volumes are like "Ok, this is your field of research and you need a reference set with depth"
okay
i am finishing up with pugh
then im going to ride either this
the differential geometry shit or anaything else
but i see alot of diagrams
and i dont know about those
@marble solar
in spivak
what are the formal prereqs for that text
i dealt with some diagrams b4 but like i dont know actual language like functor or exact functo
i just learnt about exact sequences from modules
I hear Rudin's books are good for reviewing. Terrible for starters.
@crystal kraken
Rudin is bad for everything
I think passing familiarity with topology
And analysis are the only two pre-reqs
Calculus on Manifolds by Spivak is good to have on hand, since it often references results from that
strong disagree, rudin is fantastic as a reference text
not sure exactly what "reviewing" means, if you mean as something to do practice out of, then yeh it has good problems
(though if you need something more computational, say for the mGRE, it wont help as much there)
if you mean as a reference, i think rudin is basically unparalleled
at least among texts originally written in english
theres probably some random ass german text thats also good at that
[im referring to both baby and papa, i cant really speak on grandpa]
there are indeed some random ass german texts
forgetting the random ass french texts I see
strong disagree, rudin is fantastic as a reference text
@quick hornet
I'm talking about Baby Rudin, why do you say is good for reference?
very clean, slick proofs; contains basically every result you could need and generally doesnt "hide" the important stuff in exercises as much as some other texts
I mean, Baby Rudin is one of the most advanced textbooks in basic Mathematical Analysis that I saw. But, after that, I think it doesn't have so much, Apostol have more in Riemann-Stieltjes Integral and a lot of more content I think. Besides that, if you want Rudin for the Metric Space part (Chapter 2, 4 and 7, I think) why don't use a Metric Space book? It have interesting excersies though
@crystal kraken
Rudin is bad for everything
@slender dragon I think rudin is great for a second pass of basic analysis, particularly the exercises
i dont get why u have to include rieman stiljes in a first course in analysis
Why a second pass? That's my problem, just read a good textbook and continue with other courses.
A good book as a first pass and after is Dummit and Foote
Maybe a better way to say it is review if you haven’t taken your basic analysis course in a while and you’re about to take a grad course
Mmm, well, it's not so big anyways
I think big rudin is good as a ref, and baby rudin is imo the best book out there for a first course in analysis. Played a huge role in me developing a love for the subject.
What makes a book a good reference? Why it over the internet?
A good ref covers a lot, and is succinct. Quick when you need to recall things you learned some time ago but have a hazy recollection of.
i liked rudin too
hard, but in a good way
Does anyone know a great introductory geometry book from the point of view of competition math ?
Anyone have Spivak's calculus PDF with them? zlibrary is asking me to use tor browser for that
Use libgen
Maybe Evan Chen’s book @gray gazelle ?
Yep
But the description doesn't look very encouraging : This is a challenging problem-solving book in Euclidean geometry, assuming nothing of the reader other than a good deal of courage
Anyways thanks for help :)
I would see what it has...
It didn’t look like a problem book to me, there is a lot of theory in it, starting from the very basics.
Of course, there are some quite hard problems in it too.
Yeah it’s single variable done rigorously.
nice
someone should write a collection of bots that handle all Rudin related questions
Lol
Okay one thing I don't like about Aluffi is the treatment of nilpotent groups
They're introduced in the exercises and then there's a large chunk of exercises and content following that relies on those ideas
There are things that I really like on the surface of Papa Rudin
but when I get into the details it just seems absurd
Like the treatment of Real & Complex Analysis as two halves to a coin
Is really neat, but the tools that's developed doesn't really help you do the problems or understand the conceptual motivation behind the definitions/techniques
Which is usually filled in by a great mathematics educator
So,It's not self contained?
Lol that’s my high school calculus book
ron larson 
Actually, the 4th result down searching for calculus textbook
😭
One of my classmate has been collecting screenshots of all of the people in my class (but especially me) and she's now making satirical comics with them.
The calc book pic is one of those screenshots lmao.
also Ron Larson's LinAlg ain't bad
@crystal kraken
Rudin is bad for everything
@slender dragon lmao. Ig i will be going for Marsden and Hoffman or Tao as my first book for analysis.
I think big rudin is good as a ref, and baby rudin is imo the best book out there for a first course in analysis. Played a huge role in me developing a love for the subject.
@frigid comet
Are you an analyst?
The only answer to that question is yes
I used Rudin in my first Course in Analysis
I hate Rudin, but, I learn a lot from it, but sometimes I read other books too
Based on the contents, to say nothing of the writing, I think the best alternative to Rudin is Kriz and Pultr
Like..?
@crystal kraken
Tom Apostol Mathematical Analysis
Understanding Analysis of Stephen Abbott
Steps Into Analysis it's so good. It's an inquiry base Learning book
As Oxford page says "A DIY course in Analysis"
Steps Into Analysis it's so good. It's an inquiry base Learning book
This sounds pretty interesting.
And now i am super confused. Idk which book to pick now
I don't think which book you pick really matters too much
Just pick one, see how it goes
yeah honestly at some point you should just go with at least one
As Oxford page says "A DIY course in Analysis"
We're talking about 'Understanding Analysis of Stephen Abbott', right?
yeah honestly at some point you should just go with at least one
It's just that i don't want to pick a book that i won't like and eventually lose all my interest for analysis
Tao's?
I hear it's a good book but it keeps you at a slow pace. Idk what to do🤷♂️🤷♂️
@karmic thorn
It's just that i don't want to pick a book that i won't like and eventually lose all my interest for analysis
Ig you're right. So first off, i am buying baby rudin or Stephen Abbott
Try libgening it and check if you like it first
👍
https://www.d.umn.edu/~jgallian/Proofs.html
A good reading for those starting with writing proofs.
We're talking about 'Understanding Analysis of Stephen Abbott', right?
@slender dragon
zorich's mathematical analysis is superior
for beginners?
well depends on how you understand "beginner"
i mean exercises are far not trivial ones, but he provides solid foundation
What are your views on Rudin, Tao, Pugh and Marsden and Hoffman?
i do not like rudin much
about others cannot say anything
also, bernst schroders mathematical analysis is nice
you could also try getting pdfs of all of the texts you want to look at and go through them
see which style you like the best
Mathematical Analysis by Vladimir A. Zorich, right?
another nice book is fundamentals of mathematical analysis by fikhtengolts
style is pretty old but it is more calclulus-like
ye
also, bernst schroders mathematical analysis is nice
@hollow current mathematical analysis: a concise introduction
see which style you like the best
@runic hatch that is what i am thinking of doing now.
Okayy. Thanks commander, i'll look into them.
Also, Is burton ok for NT?
idk any of number theory, but many recommend rosen (ireland)
Hmm. Aight, thanks.
We're talking about 'Understanding Analysis of Stephen Abbott', right?
@crystal kraken
No, Steps into Analysis of R.P. Burn
Steps into Analysis is a amazing book to learn, and then you can go more deeper with other book
Google shows the book 'Numbers and Functions'. This is the one, right?
Yes
Kk. Thanks
I do not find the answer of the exercise 2 of the section 1.1 here https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/Main.pdf#page=304 does it exists?
hammack only does the odd numbered ones
you have to come up with your own solution and know that it's correct
hammack only does the odd numbered ones
yeah, if you have any question about the book you could ask in #proofs-and-logic or the question channels.
i think there was a website i came across that has like solved problems for most standard math books
here the answer should be something like ${\hdots,-3,-1,2,5,8,\hdots}$
rudin, d&f, ...
bastian.uwu:
i think there was a website i came across that has like solved problems for most standard math books
yeah it probably steals solution manuals done by instructors and students lmao
many people do that, I do but never finish them
here the answer should be something like {\hdots,-3,-1,2,5,8,\hdots}
@gray gazelle
maybe, i think anyone could submit solutions (not sure how they checked that submitted solutions are actualy correct)
just make your own solution manual and sell it for a ridiculous price
then they can't steal
i like the idea of having free solutions on the internet
yeah slader is useful... but often misused
users can leave ratings on answers
to decide whether its a high quality submission
just make your own solution manual and sell it for a ridiculous price
@gray gazelle i will do so with zorich
😄
me with pedersen ig
it wouldn't even be a solution manual
just like
some random exercises here and there
good question
i'm not sure
none of the exercises i've chosen to do have been particularly difficult
there could be some hard ones hiding in the ones i don't try writing full solutions for
im going to start reading 3.2 and try to get an exercise or two done tonight
i plan to speed up a bit
like i feel like i should be around chapter 4 at this point
last 3 chapters?
ultra giving me a problem set here 
what happens if i don't submit them on time

ah but you never said they had to be correct solutions

Do you guys
ah
is terry tao's book on measure theory any good?
why is it decent and not amazing?
i need to know if its worth investing in
that ish is expensive
well that certainly solves things
why is 90% of the book Chapter 1
the second section is for extra bits like problem solving strategies
but I wanted to know if it was worth purchasing for a reference library
i guess that solves things
idk, I probably wouldn't call any "measure theory" book amazing, there aren't many out there
but the material is contained in many more general real analysis texts, idk that I really have a favourite when it comes to presentation of the measure theory content.
@hollow current
@gray gazelle i will do so with zorich
if you want to share solutions, I am with you. I have skills with git.
@gray gazelle lmao, if it will happen certainly not this year
i have solved at best 10% of zorich
I can focus on the technical part to publish it on git as I told. I just need people to be sure that my answer are corrects.
(but it has already taken 20 pages of proofs kek)
well we will see
prolly i will indeed someday publish it
@hollow current publish what ? about proof and logic?
I can focus on the technical part to publish it on git as I told. I just need people to be sure that my answer are corrects.
@gray gazelle if one goes to look at others' solutions one does it on ones own risk
@hollow current publish what ? about proof and logic?
@gray gazelle all the solutions to zorich exercises that i managed to do
zorich ? what is it?
if you do so, then I will help you
sure we will see
cool
Learn french and read Le Gall's amazing lecture notes on measure theory 
@sleek python C'est bon j'ai appris le français je fais quoi avec la théorie des mesures maintenant?
Is Le Gall's that good?
yeah
I can read french, but I don't know any good french math books to read
C'est tout? C'est un peu dommage comme même... J'ai passé 5 ans à apprendre le français.
Probably best intro to measure theory around (in french)
Je pensais que t'avais appris en 5 secondes

I spent a summer in France before I got good enough at math to identify good math books
I was gonna go again this summer but then covid hit
If you want some french recs hit me up 
@sleek python Do you have a linl to the book?
linl?
link
please
how's gilbert strang's book on linalg
It's good
for someone who just wants to get in the topic and wants to do it rigorously?
My impression of Strang is that it's eh for rigor
Can a beginner to linear algebra(who has basic familiarity with matrices/determinants) use an abstract linear algebra textbook(the ones which start with vector spaces and then move to matrices, etc.) for a first reading?
Honestly I think even if you don't know what a matrix is, maybe as long as you know what a proof is or smth, you can start off with a more abstract book
i study physics in my own time so yes ive done some matrices but the physicist way
kinda wanted to do it the mathematician way
i knew what a vector space is before i knew what a matrix is
Same
matrices are not part of the highschool curriculum here
I was taught basics of matrices and determinants at school.
linear algebra is a first semester class
And some vector algebra as well.
or maybe i missed matrices in school
i remember vectors
and the vector product
*cross product
and dot product i guess
but no matrices
Yeah, the standard introductory stuff, 3D geometry as well.
and my first week of linear algebra introduced groups, rings and vector spaces
or the first 2 weeks
So maybe I should buy a physical copy of such an abstract kind of text. I'm starting to get a hang of proofs so I should be fine I guess.
Were you at the same uni 
i think we even did linear function before we did matrices
i think this is standard tbh
our school representing matrices is like "ok this is matrix and this is determinant but im not gonna tell you whatever the absolute fuck each of them are they're just defined as this lmao"
basically
matrices are linear functions, determinants are magic
We did ZFC the first weeks though
you're welcome
HAHAHA
we did ZFC in analysis
That's school maths for you. I'm still not sure what the determinant is supposed to be.
yes, same
determinant just... works
The introduction is "okay, this is how you calculate it for this 2x2 matrix..."
It has some geometric interpretation though, right?
Something about volumes of parallelopipes as far as I recall
my school didnt even teach us how to do linear equations with matrices
basically all of their problems were like "find m and n"
The determinant is the (essentially unique) universal alternating multilinear map.
this is the standard in introduction linear algebra
the nlab definition is actually good
Oh in high school we didn't do shit
That definition needs more motivation than "here's the formula..."
Motivation is for weaklings
for determinant i agree
I am a weakling.
Other than that I don't have to study much about fields beforehand right?
the best definition is via exterior algebras
but that requires a lot more machinery than you can teach in an intro linear algebra class
maybe at the very end
Well definitely not field theory
Since the book I'm looking forward to starts with vector spaces on general fields, I don't know anything besides the axioms.
you need to know what a field is
Doing some elementary stuff with fields should suffice
but for most of linear algebra you can substitute field with R
(and maybe C if you are brave)
Yeah, that's what the preface suggested too.
Like looking at some finite fields and then some other fields like R and C
Rings would also be useful for example for smith normal forms
Not sure if those are covered in that book
So some abstract algebra before linear algebra?
Yes a little can't hurt
to me linear algebra is the intro class that introduces some algebra
Linear algebra seems indispensable for so many different subjects that I feel obliged to study it first now.
i mean there is a reason its an intro class
Yes it should be in repertoire of every mathematician.
I ignored it and jumped straight into group theory, but now I feel it'll be good to know linear algebra from the onset. Thanks for the suggestions!
it provides good examples of groups
you can either embrace or ignore linear algebra in a lot of group theory curricula
it not only provides good examples but
i think it assumes that you know what matrices are
basically looking at groups from the perspective of vector spaces often lets you "discover" a lot of "structure"
that is hard to reason about otherwise
I do think group theory should be pretty linear algebraic
my first group theory midterm had a really nasty problem where you had to go through an entire tangent with showing that a certain group basically acts as a vector space over Z/nZ for some n
and this lets you demonstrate a lot of shit about its automorphism structure
in theory you could justify that purely group theoretically but
it seems like a pain in the ass
yeah if its finitely generated sure
but a lot of groups are infinite 😦
The book I'm using(Gallian) assumes almost no knowledge of linear algebra, and the only two examples used so far(the general linear group and special linear group) were easy to grasp.
(and not f.g.)
also this problem was worth like
half the midterm lmao
but you got part marks for every little step since it was so long
what was the problem?
it was some isomorphism relation between groups where all nontrivial elements are of order p for some prime
and some automorphism structure on a related multiplicative group U(n)
i forget the exact details of the relation
bruh
but we had to characterize the p, n for which it held (and prove it ofc)
and ofc if youre reading that you probably instantly jump to like
considering generators and how automorphisms act on them and whatnot
but theres no guarantee the first group is f.g.
so its much more natural to look at it from an LA perspective (since the first group is a vector space over Z/pZ)
still an absolutely miserable problem though
i dont think anyone got 100% on it
(but the midterm was scaled such that a 50% on the test was worth 100% grade-wise)
Yes it should be in repertoire of every mathematician.
@gray gazelle
What parts of Linear Algebra?
prerequisites for spivak's comprehensive introduction to differential geometry?\
i know uptill chap 3 pugh analysis , linear algebra and algebra dummit
some more MVC stuff wouldn't hurt but those prereqs look good
i am not good though
like im not capable with analysis
like
idk how to explain it]
you don't need the inequality pushing part of analysis for a book like spivak
chapter 2 of pugh is topology, right?
that's pretty important imo
however, if you include things like the inverse, implicit function theorems in analysis, then you do need those (maybe not extreme familiarity, but be comfortable with using them)
those come up fairly often
I have ordered Analysis 1 by Terence Tao. Is it good for a beginner ?
you ordered a book without knowing whether or not it'd be good for you?

i have heard it's good
rather slow, but still good
I asked my friend. Just wanted to get ur opinions
i have heard it's good
@gray gazelle kk thanks 👍
Library Genesis is a scientific community targeting collection of books on natural science disciplines and engineering.
@gray gazelle yes i know the topology
but i wasnt the most capable
with exercises
( at all )
and i thought chap 3 was uselss
other than proving MVT and Extreme value stuff
itr was just normal calculus from hs
why not just skim the first few sections of spivak and see if you need to brush up on anything in particular
Someone here have read 'A Fucking Concrete Introduction to Abstract Algebra"m
That's the book
Yo wtf this book is hilarious
a b c murders
Haha, what?
anyone got any opinions on the LotR books? I'm considering getting them but not sure
By LotR you mean Lord of the Rings?
yes
Huge book
oh, so it's not a light read? 😦
nvm that then, I need to find something that suits my tiny attention span
@slender dragon who did this 🤣
@worn matrix Try albert camus stranger
only 140 pages
thanks, that sounds manageable!
Just so you know the books here are meant to be mathematics oriented
there is no explict rule against it but i don't think they created this channel with those in mind
that makes sense, I probably should have considered that
btw lotr wasn't huge i mixed it with harry potter
huh there actually isnt an explicit rule stating that the books have to be math-related
I might give LotR a try, and Stranger too
really depends on what you want to read, reading for reading sake is mid
reading out of interest is cool
I like fantasy but struggle with the length 🙂
then you don't like it enough
force yourself through it and get used/comfortable with long attention to books
everyone isn't born with long or short attention span, you get better with practice
(unless severe ADHD or some thing but then you're likely on meds)
Yeah, I should stop making excuses and just force myself to concentrate
Thanks for the pep-talk ❤️
👍
everyone isn't born with long or short attention span, you get better with practice
@gray gazelle you sure?
Exclude the middle!
Nah,Lem is not true
@wooden sparrow Yes?
LoTr isn't the best intro to topology
Lord of the Rings?
Lord of the Topological Rings
lord of the topological mugs
Topological rings vs Ring Spectra vs Spectra of Rings
Are there any books that pertain to the construction of mathematical objects after the establishment of predicate logic and set theory?
tbh forsaken im not sure what you're looking for
like you want to study analogies between fields rigorously?
this might be the only time to unironically suggest category theory
I agree with Max on this, if that's your shindig than Cat Theory seems the way to go
@gray gazelle you sure?
@wooden sparrow much of improving attention has to do with creating environments where you have fewer distractions
ok but not everyone have environments like that, and @gray gazelle 's statement of " don't make excuses" seems very git gud mentality to me
Well, I mean an obvious environmental distraction for everyone here is social media. It seems wrong to say that not everyone can get manage that variable, at least to a degree.
@granite sluice totally
@wooden sparrow and what's wrong with that?
since when is "git gud" advice bad especially in things like this where no one is in control and able to help except for the person themself?
it's more about dedication, discipline and responsibility than a rare advantage/disadvantage
it's merely reading a book
if I was offensive for telling them to git gud to the point where they can read a 300 page book, call me alt-right
fiction on top of that
LOTR
easier to read than moby dick
yes, and?
did he say he has ADHD?
definitely not true
but I did take it into account
if you read above
you arem issing some context
Even if there are spectrums of concentration ability, it's still correct advise to say: create environments where you can focus and give it a meaningful shot. Also make sure it's something you want to focus on -- if something is boring, well, no wonder one is going to have a hard time focusing on it. 🤷♂️ So find something you want to focus on and focus on that instead. I've read 1000+ page fanfics at a time that I couldn't focus on anything else.
man
people really love dragging every little criticism or tiniest thing they consider to be down-playing
@dense wren not even that anymore
they only care about how things come off as
covert communication on an internet platform
how pathetic can it get?
It's like in that netflix show I forgot name
where they are in a community where people will be angry if you give them the wrong look
nah it's even more pathetic than that 🤣 @sweet lotus
I don't know what's going on anymore but I saw the word dog-whistle and am triggered: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/
For on-topic's sake
Axler's LADR is not an introductory book
Yet it's everyone's favorite book to recommend
how did this happen?
"Hey I have never studied LA what's a good book on it?"
"Axler, it's made for grad/second course LA, so you who has never studied linear algebra should read it :3 "
It's the "typical mind fallacy."
@gray gazelle I like the book, but yeah probably not super great for someone who has never done any LA
Failure: Honestly I'm fine with books at that level being intro books
We get it denmark, you are a prodigy 🇩🇰
I think the idea that people have to see the pure computational linear algebra class before abstract vector spaces isn't true
I don't claim to be a prodigy by any means, it's not just my experience here
I mean there has to be a reason to learn computational linear algebra since it's usually what people are first exposed to
i feel like the main thing is the ever ambiguous mathematical maturity
It's called budget
same way you learn computational calculus before diving into stuff like Spivak or Analysis
Math departments often don't have the money to offer a separate track for math majors from the engineering majors in the first 2 years
fair
So they just lump the math people in with the engineering people
"like, idk why people even read books on linear algebra, it's all obvious stuff to me, just remember that these two spaces are isomorphic and that Vect is semisimple" ( a self parody)
But it is absolutely possible to jump right into a Spivak Calc class, or into a theoretical linear algebra class
If people don't know anything about proofs or the subject matter you can't do it especially quickly
So e.g. if people already took computational calc you can prob get through all of Spivak in a semester
Because the ideas aren't new
i mean familiarity with writing proofs is one of the hardest parts isnt it
at the intro level
While if this is their first time they need the standard time to grapple with the concepts as well as time to generically get the flow of proofs
So e.g. it was 5 weeks into my Spivak class before we discussed a limit
Math pedagogy is hard. Most math people forget that 99.9% of math students are have minds that work very differently from them.
[Epistemic status: That percentage is totally correct.]
A lot of pedagogy needs to be chesterton's fenced in order to understand that it might be the way it is because it is not designed for your typical math phd student.
(Again, am mostly calling myself out here.)
Linear algebra more than calc because I think the computational side doesn't even give you much momentum in the proof based side
I think you are projecting your experience too much here, 95% of people who haven't done highschool calculus could not get through Spivak; And probably 80% of those who took highschool calculus couldn't get through Spivak either
The difference and leap from computational, formula-based, memorizing mathematics to pure abstract math in Spivak with proofs and rigorous concepts is a huge jump imo
Like I can do Gaussian elimination fast
Oh wait
This doesn't help me understand the abstract notion of a vector space
@dense wren agree
Gaussian elimination is pretty important.
For understanding LA algorithmically at least.
It's important sure, I just don't think your ability to understand the concepts does much for grappling with the theoretical concepts. Compared to calc where it's more like
Okay I know the derivatives of these functions and I'm sorta going back through and computing things I already know the answer to
I don't agree. It depends on what theoretical concepts. If you want to understand why certain operations can be performed efficiently and why others cannot, you have no choice but to think about the algoriothms.
I mean the context is a theoretical linear algebra class
Like I can do Gaussian elimination fast
This doesn't help me understand the abstract notion of a vector space
remove the word "fast" and it absolutely does
But [abstract vector spaces] is not the only way in which linear algebra is important. Anyway I'm not sure what exactly the discussion is here; what are we trying to figure out?
Whether it makes sense to recommend a theoretical linear algebra book as a first course
imagine if I tried Axler
Or whether you should first go through a raw computational course first
Oh, I see. I don't know. For people with typical math PhD brains, probably yes. For people who aren't built to think about that much abstraction, possibly not.
i think the answer to that is the same as the answer to calculus.
I think math PhD's, again, underestimate how rare the skill of 'think about this abstractly and precisely' is (whether or not it can be effectively trained in is another question, but if we are discussing intro classes...)
Hence the 'typical mind fallacy' being relevant.
i.e. probably not worth tackling a fully "theoretical" text at first pass for most students, but certainly a "hybrid" approach is a very good idea for math majors
And my basic case is that there's more of a disconnect between grappling with abstraction and with the matrix computations. They're important to know but it's less "one sets up to understanding the other" you know?
Anyway this is why I'm saying it needs to be Chesterton's fenced; there is a reason why schools don't usually have the first LA class be via Axler, it's done more computationally. I'm not convinced that doing it the other way would be better; I'm sure people have tried, and I would be interested to know what went wrong.
i disagree with that actually
i think the concept of row reduction is more directly connected to "the fundamental item" of linear algebra (vector spaces and their bases) than most derivative computations are to the "fundamental item" of real analysis (the limit and derivative)
For instance, I remember tutoring a engineering student about Linear algebra. He just could not understand the abstract notion of linear independence. He was very intelligent otherwise, but could not grasp that level of abstraction. (At least partly it's my failure as a tutor, but you know, I gave him many examples, many equivalent definitions, many exercises to try, he read from many sources ... :\ )
like okay let me clarify
in an analysis context we care about the abstract derivative
the derivative in the MVT or taylor's theorem or w/e
it rarely cares what exact value that derivative has
just that it has a specific value/property at some point
i dont think the same thing holds in LA since
why not both in the same course?
we do very much care about the results of these comptuations
since they tell us a LOT about some vector space we care about
(i.e. they entirely determine it!)
proofs > computation
t. mathematicians
idk mabye im thinking too narrowly
The concept of row reduction is different from the act of doing it no? Like you can code it and know it's a thing that does what you want
certainly stuff like the gram-schmidt process or w/e
isnt really core material
besides knowing that it can be done
I don't know how much intuition comes out of doing it with a lot of numbers
I think he passed his linear algebra class, and probably was trained in the end to be relatively successful at some kind of professional work. But if the class had been about abstract linear algebra, he would never have passed. It would have weeded people with brains like him out; is that necessarily a good outcome?
(at least until you generalize it in lie stuff)
I mean I'm talking about math major classes rather than engineering
I don't see the point of discussing specifics like Row Reduction
I don't think it's productive to push proofs onto engineers
I agree with iceberg, who in turn agrees with failure, who ultimately agrees with me
The point is, abstract/theoretical books are discouraged these days for a reason; It's not for budget
But if you're going for the math major you should be, if not currently able to handle abstraction, able to absorb it in time. And the way you do it is to do it
Almost nobody applies for math major anywhere
That's fine, but also math departments will have to deal with fewer math majors if that's the case.
Catering to a very small audience is stupid
There are olympiads, AP courses and other honors classes for those
failure are you saying there shoudlnt exist math major-specific classes?
Okay let me phrase this better then
@quick hornet No I'm saying there's a different path for those
There's a track for math majors which shouldn't be scared doing abstraction early
In which case a better variant of Axler is fine for a first class
If there's a math major linear algebra class then I agree, but that's often not how things are structured. I don't know what the right answer here is though. I'm just saying I don't trust my intuitions about what would be good for the generic student, because (simply by virtue of being in a math PhD student), my intuitions about how people learn math are different from how a generic person learns math.
?!
If you're in engineering then Axler is neither a first course, second course, or nth course for any n
What Math major classes WOULDN'T use axler?

are you saying they use compuatational ones in math majors?
Most math majors in most places are just pushed through the computational ones first two years. Also your gripe was with Axler as a first course
i feel like "generalist" spaces about academic subjects inevitably become bad
even this discord has a de-facto internal specialization to specifically pure mathematics
mostly because of demographics
I'm saying I think we can reasonably partition people between:
(1) People for whom (a better variant of) Axler is fine as a first course
(2) People who prob aren't gonna bother with Axler-style stuff throughout undergrad
I agree with that partition. I'm not sure how it could be implemented effectively.
the way schools currently do it in canada?
I think part of the problem is probably implementing that. Here is where I think people have probably tried, with different levels of success and or failure.
How do schools in Canada do it?
I mean, Chicago does it just fine, Madison basically does it fine, Europe at large for the most part
Canada apparently
What's the measure of fine here?
there are a collection of introductory linear algebra courses
usually one dedicated to math majors and called "honors" or "specialization" or similar
which takes a hybrid pure-computational approach, leaning more towards pure
and then (at least) one more "general" lin alg course
which generally only spends a little bit of time on "abstract theory"
Chicago's a special case because there's no engineering and math majors (with rare exceptions) start with Spivak Calc first year
(many schools have multiple "general" lin alg courses, such as one for specifically engineering students or w/e)
@sage python 95% of people are not (1); (2) sounds like a product of their environment, not their ability to be able to do it so these two are weird comparisons
my undergrad had:
- honors LA: serious math majors and sufficiently motivated CS/physics students
- engineering LA: self-explanatory
- general LA: everyone else
I'm talking about ability to do them
(2) is not as much an ability thing so much as
You seem to be talking about curriculum structure
and in terms of "theoretical-ness" it was
honors > general > engineering
also stats majors are generally included under the "math major" umbrella fwiw
If you're in engineering you don't have especially strong reason to bother with proofs, it's not that important for what you need to do
I almsot want to pick up Axler and try it to show denmark how terrible it will go
That makes sense. My intuitions are that individual institutions have to figure out how to structure such partitions based on their experiences with their typical cohorts.
🇩🇰
it feels like you and dami are in different convos
yeah maybe
damis talking about the design of a course for math majors
And for the most part I think that math major has limited appeal and almost should have limited appeal
and youre saying "well not everyones cut out for that"
even if we take that as true (it may be, idk the science/pedagogy)
then you... probably shouldnt be a math major?
Let's drop it then
Because it just doesn't lead to careers the same way that compsci and science do
And for the most part I think that math major has limited appeal and almost should have limited appeal
@sage python I agree with this. A real danger for majors is that they get watered down.
If you're choosing the math major over another major you're sorta engaging with it "on its terms"
(This has happened in some places I'm aware of, for various institutional incentives like creating more degrees and passing more students.)
i do notice a general difference in attitude of students in mathematics vs cs/whatever
most students in CS just want to pass
most students in mathematics want to actually do well
this is exaggerated moreso in engineering but i think thats understandable just because
engineering standards are high as shit at most places
at least here in canada, the workloads are insane
so a "good" average is considered, like, high 2.xs instead of high 3.xs
and fwiw i cant blame students for not wanting to spend as much effort in academics, or stress about living up to a high standard, or just being in it for the job, or whatever
in fact thats probably a more responsible thing
for the vast majority
(though it would be nice to have more students interested in engaging with the material "for its own sake" rather than to check a box...)
going to try axler now never been exposed to even matrices
(cough much of the educational system is about generating signals for future employees to judge you by cough)
barely systems of linear equations
So I don't actually like Axler in particular
Axler is fantastic in many ways
What do you like?
Not so good in some others
My own path through linear algebra was kinda weird
:^)
Roman is a good third book in LA...
I had this 5 week class summer after my first year that was 2.5 hours/day, 5 days/week
without knowing Calculus or LA
eh roman is a fine second book
Honestly watch 3b1b's essence of calculus to at least get a quick feel imo
if your first book was axler-esque
Wish me good luck )
Daily psets

And 3ish weeks of that class was linear algebra
Sorry, not calculus but the lin alg playlist
i actually really like roman's treatment of hilbert stuff
way more approachable than most IMO
though ofc it doesnt go into full func anal depth
Good to know I should probably read up
We didn't really use a book, one of my friends was consulting Axler
I think I had half the picture from that class
anal depth
Then in analysis my prof gave us Hoffman-Kunze
And would give us psets and say okay read the relevant chapter of the book
I hate classes without textbook/lecture notes
Lmao
From first page they assume I have PhD in LA

Here is the piece on the 'typical mind fallacy' that I was thinking of: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/baTWMegR42PAsH9qJ/generalizing-from-one-example
I think this is very relevant to many discussions of math pedagogy.
TL;DR
For instance: "I only really discovered this in my last job as a school teacher. There's a lot of data on teaching methods that students enjoy and learn from. I had some of these methods...inflicted...on me during my school days, and I had no intention of abusing my own students in the same way. And when I tried the sorts of really creative stuff I would have loved as a student...it fell completely flat. What ended up working? Something pretty close to the teaching methods I'd hated as a kid. Oh. Well. Now I know why people use them so much. And here I'd gone through life thinking my teachers were just inexplicably bad at what they did, never figuring out that I was just the odd outlier who couldn't be reached by this sort of stuff."
The axioms of a vector space are a little scary, and are usually hidden from most new students. They're important though, to really understand what's going on.
You can simplify them pretty quick. Scalars allow you to add, subtract, multiply, divide. Vectors allow you to add and subtract. You can multiply a scalar by a vector.
Hmm?
LADW covers almost all the material of ladr except for like direct sums
and determinants probably 
Flip lol
Expect it to be somewhat difficult though
Hardly
axler at least tries to teach you
this wrong guy straight up thinks this is your second nature
It's comprehensive, albeit doesn't go into infinite dimensional proofs for some important theorems and leaves you to figure out subjectivity and injectivity via pivots/rank which is fine
I'm currently using it for my second look at LA, though, so maybe that's why I like it
@hollow peak what was your first course book?
The shoplifting thing was insane to me.
@sweet lotus Yeah, that was a surprise to me as well.
Huh? Shoplifting?
I think its relatively easy for me to accept that people have more or less detailed mental images, but visualizing things is such a key part to my thinking that I don't know exactly what I'd do without it. (Although it's not as vivid as what you describe.) I also get a lot of emotional signals while thinking though -- like little nudges of 'are you quite sure this is right' that are pretty useful when doing math, or just thinking in general.
I have very vivid (abstract) mental images when listening to music though.
Also kind you kinda proved my point, people who already have been exposed are very biased towards how "doable" these books are
Yeah it's fascinating. I wonder what it's like to be in Gromov's brain, for instance. What a mystery.
First timer in Linear Algebra could never touch Axler or LADW, unless they have been exposed to proofs and rigorous calculus before like Spivak or something


This is my favorite math meme.
What am I looking at
i don't get it, but i like it
i like how the russian word for chat is literally just "chat"
What am I looking at
@hollow peak Galois scribbling notes in jail, Moses on the mountain, Scriabin's world ending symphony.
is it even possible to disagree with gromov?
First timer in Linear Algebra could never touch Axler or LADW, unless they have been exposed to proofs and rigorous calculus before like Spivak or something
@gray gazelle I can totally see LADW being a really good intro to proofs, it's rigorous but the exercises are relatively straightforward (in number of arguments required)
It's important to recognize that different people are going to have different difficulties with concentration
@inland coral not just concentration. Different people have different situational problems too. Just giving everyone a silver bullet kinda generalised advice to git gud is bad
I agree with Ultra here.
@hollow peak Are you sure? Is that your own evaluated opinion from your own experience;
Or do you really think someone who hasn't studied proofs in mathematics and never been exposed to Linear algebra could pick up LADW?
Yes. My first exposure to proofs was lang linear algebra
git gud takes effort tho
Sometimes Git Gud is the only reasonable advice.
@sweet lotus when everyone's having equal opportunities and environment, sure
If you want a gentle intro it definitely deprives you of the improvement that guided challenge gives you
@sweet lotus This
LOTR as an intro to proofs?
so you agree with ultra here 
yes@gray gazelle
If you want a gentle intro it definitely deprives you of the improvement that guided challenge gives you
@hollow peak Lang or LADW?
Honestly Lang is probably harder than LADW
@sweet lotus Preach 💯
Definitely more terse
Lang has two books, introduction to linear algebra (for first timers) and Linear Algebra (for graduates I think?)
which one? @hollow peak
My point being that math which kicks your ass but not to the point of not understanding is very good for you
If you're willing to take the time
Both are the same book
hmmm
his intro book covers pretty much like Axler
I was under the impression he had "Introduction to Linear Algebra" and "Linear Algebra" both in UTM
And they're basically the same book
the other one cvovers shit like diagnolization of unitary maps, convex sets, hermitian case, etc
the first book doesn't
@hollow peak they don't even have the same table of content bro
yeah first one doesn't cover that
second one seems much harder
muuuuuuuch harder jesus
yep
@sweet lotus when everyone's having equal opportunities and environment, sure
@wooden sparrow A rule which is true for most (not all - for instance I am excluding the several mentally ill from this) of humanity is that it is up to them how they react to their environments. (Channeling Aurelius' Meditations here.) Deciding to 'git gud' is one possible reaction, and is possible in most environments, although of course various factors make it easier or harder. I think it's also basically the right reaction in most modern circumstances, because skill is generally rewarded, and developing a skill at intellectual tasks like math requires little beyond time, a book, paper and (ideally) a supportive community.
If you just want LA at a really basic level then strang is good for computation
I don't want to compute
I just want to see if your hypothesis that someone like me can do a book like Axler or LADW is true or false
If I wanted to do computational LA I would just use khan academy
You can ask for help too, it's not like you're completely alone in learning material or being confused
I think there is something to pointing at differences in opportunities and environments, but a trap is to focus on those as an excuse for individual failure, rather than as a social problem that progress can be made towards solving.
lol Git Gud
Also when it comes to reading, personally I've found it much easier to focus on fanfic than serious literature (like LOTR) at different points in my life. There should be no shame in milking fascination with a fictional universe for all it's worth, and there are some truly incredible fanfics in even the silliest fictional universes (e.g. Naruto or Pokemon).
on one hand, fanfic reading is totally valid if you find interest in it, im not gonna tell you not to do what you enjoy
on the other, im gonna scoff and look down at you for it
not openly
but in my head
All I will feel in response is sympathy that you are missing out on something really fun.
these might seem like contradictory positions
and i think they probably are
i just have... stereotypes
(most of which are probably wrong, all of which are certainly not universal)
Lmfao
lmao. HP has some great fanfic. HPMOR is an obvious one, there's also arithmancer, which is appealing to math students for obvious reasons (although I didn't make it through part II, just got too long).

like im sure im just predisposed to think negatively of it because of the bad apples being more public/visible
One of my favorite ones is one where Hermione gets sorted into slytherine, and attracts the attention of Tom Riddle's diary, who starts training her into the next dark lady.
It is awesome, though unfortunately incomplete.
I feel weird for sharing so many SSC things today but as you bring up 'my immortal' I must: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/26/my-immortal-as-alchemical-allegory/
there's a lesswrong fanfic
@quick hornet MK is referring to this: http://www.hpmor.com/ . I personally found it to be a fun read, but ymmv obviously.
Hey hey, I think it's time to call samanthacs here
oh
Oh, you are here
does fanfiction imply romance? Genuine question
It's mixed, there are good and bad things there. The obsession with AI risk is weird and annoying though.
@slender sphinx It doesn't, although slash-fic is popular for obvious reasons. (Who doesn't want to see Harry and Snape fall in love in a touching and creative way?)
To bad book discussion chat doesn't have reactions
Yeah exactly. Much of literature is fanfic. Hamlet is fan fic, at least to an extent.
Good fanfic will take the tropes of a familiar narrative universe and explore 'what if this other thing happened?' It's fascinating.
An academic book on fanfic I read (they exist) describes it as being similar to speculative science-fiction in that way.
Like, HPMOR is basically "Harry Potter, but what if Harry Potter was obsessed with rational decision making and raised by a biology professor?"
Topkek
And Arithmancer is "Harry Potter, but what if math is the basic language of magic, and you can become a better wizard by studying cohomology?"
fanfics can sometimes be better than the source material
but usually you'd need a sufficiently large number of fanfics for that to happen
yeah you see
lesswrongs emphasis with so-called "rational decision making"
makes me feel
very suspicious
Yeah. One of the dynamics with fanfic is a large fanfic community exploring the universe is analogous to a large scientific community exploring a topic; they end up pushing it beyond the seminal contribution.
like i'd like to imagine i'm a fairly rational person for the most part, of course i sometimes emphasize short-term gains over long-term ones so im imperfect
but i cant imagine what would motivate someone to like
seek out a group of people to just
discuss such a vague and broad topic with
and my ego is pretty big
i dont mean this as a dismissal of the philosophy of rationalism fwiw
but if thats what its targeted towards
then like
why not just saay that
just say "this is a discussion forum for rationalistic philosophy and epistemology" or smthn
I personally have learned useful things from the LW stuff, although mostly through SSC, which is an offshoot. I agree that some of it is weird, but it's all pretty consistently about people saying 'hey I notice I have this bad pattern of thinking, and here is something that helps, what do you think?'
I don't like the naming in the sense that it implies that other people are not rational, though.
Well I'd like to make fewer mistakes, in general. I think that is a reasonable goal.
can u do something entirely good without having a rational reason to do so?
@soft terrace I think so, yes.

if not then it is safest to live rationally to get the best outcome yes?
I thought you meant: "Can I do something correctly, even if my reasons are incorrect?"
There are limitations to how rational people can live.
There are times when it is irrational to be rational.
physical restrictions or conceptual?
Sigh (at doing this again, not the topic), relevant SSC: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret-of-our-success/
i personally am not a big fan of social pressures
The linked articles gives some interesting examples of when seemingly irrational behavior is correct, and for physical, not social reasons.
No worries, I realize sending so many 'read this' is .... mildly cultish behavior.
what is ssc used for ?
The earlier posts you gave were good so I imagine you just have better luck with SSC than I do.
@sweet lotus I think it's partly that I have friends who read this, and so good ones get signal boosted.
what is ssc used for ?
@soft terrace Slate Star Codex, the name of the blog.
oh this is a blog
I don't take you for a cultist don't worry.
@sweet lotus Phew... now let me tell you about the deluxe rationality package...
I agree with Ultra here.
u should bait all the high school hw help ppl into joining
its best to recruit cult members lower on the education scale imo
they might get ideas the higher up u go
excellent choice
lol i was going to say that
The way most religions do.
I agree with ultra here
so are you gonna set up an entire education system and a weekend ritual around your cult?
ultra already has a discord. continuous brainwashing.
how long have you been in this server?
"I agree with ultra here" has been said 150 times (151 now).



